ÿWPC@  …# VUNa %¯ 0(µUPÝ 0l- 0D™ w@Ý 4 1 0J@ Š 0T’ 0^æ 0hD 0r¬ 0| 0†š 0 1u° 0d%U>‰B)ÇDCð AM3U*€ª D3º BíU6  0@@ð€—pCv~JvÓÈ AO›Æê 0D° D/ô B# ˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡&@FÐZ ‹8CaslonOpnface BT Regular((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó HIEJKULUMNRSÓ€_·‚^!1ª3|xa2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  ÔQ#2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d%%%%7Border 1dd€-&Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÔ€(ÔÔ€(ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€(XÔÌÌò òDecember€24,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€(ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó++++'ÿÿdxd d< Œ 9p`(Courier New("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò æÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€,ÔÔ€,ôÔUPS€stands€for€United€Parcel€Service,€Inc.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€,ÔÔ€,ôÔWe€have€limited€our€review€to€the€verified€facts€presented€by€theÏnonmovant,€UPS,€and€the€evidence€advanced€by€Buck€Fever€to€which€UPS€eitherÏagrees€or€offers€no€rebuttal.€€We€accept€as€true€all€evidence€presented€byÏUPS.€€òòSee€ò òByrd€v.€Halló óóó,€847€S.W.2d€208,€215€(Tenn.€1993)€(ð ðThe€evidenceÏoffered€by€the€nonmoving€party€must€be€taken€as€true.ðð)€€We€have€disregardedÏas€immaterial€any€evidence€submitted€by€Buck€Fever€that€conflicts€with€theÏabove.Ì 9Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€,ÔÔ€,ôÔT.C.A.€ðð€20„2„214(a)€provides,€in€pertinent€part,€as€follows:ÌÌà àà8 àPersons€who€are€nonresidents€of€Tennessee...€areÏsubject€to€the€jurisdiction€of€the€courts€of€thisÏstate€as€to€any€action€or€claim€for€relief€arisingÏfrom:ÌÌà@ à*€€€€€€*€€€€€€*ÌÌà àà8 à(6)€Any€basis€not€inconsistent€with€the€constitutionÏof€this€state€or€of€the€United€States.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÑ P ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ% € ÔÑ7€µiXXdìdÈ7ÑÙ€€ÙßR€')&A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRßÞ ÞÌà@ àÔ€,ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌÌÌUPS,à àà àà àà àà àà à€€)€C/A€NO.€03A01„9609„CH„00288Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€)Ìà àPlaintiff„Appellant,à à€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€)€APPEAL€AS€OF€RIGHT€FROM€THEÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à€€)€KNOX€COUNTY€CHANCERY€COURTÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€)ÌBUCK€FEVER€RACING,€INC.,à àà à€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€)€HONORABLE€FREDERICK€D.€McDONALDÌà àDefendant„Appellee.à àà à€€)€CHANCELLORÌÌÌÌÌÌFor€Appellantà àà àà àà àà àFor€AppelleeÌÌDAVID€A.€LUFKINà àà àà àà àMARK€L.€ESPOSITOÌLufkin€&€Henleyà àà àà àà àMARK€E.€FRYEÌKnoxville,€Tennesseeà àà àà àPenn,€Stuart€&€EskridgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àBristol,€VirginiaÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÔ€XÔÔ€,ÔÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSusano,€J.ÌÓÓà àà àUPS× ƒ. ××  ×,€an€Ohio€corporation,€sued€Buck€Fever€Racing,€Inc.Ï(Buck€Fever),€a€Virginia€corporation,€on€an€open€account.€€TheÏcomplaint€seeks€$40,607.48,€pre„€and€post„judgment€interest,€andÏattorney€fees.€€It€is€supported€by€a€sworn€account.€€The€trialÏcourt€granted€Buck€Feverððs€motion€to€dismiss€because€the€courtÏfound€that€it€lacked€the€necessary€òòin€personamóó€jurisdiction€toÏrender€a€monetary€judgment€against€the€defendant.€€UPS€appealed,Ïarguing€that€the€facts€developed€below€reflect€that€the€defendantÏhad€sufficient€minimum€contacts€with€Tennessee€to€justify€theÏexercise€of€jurisdiction€over€it.ÌÌà àà àBuck€Feverððs€motion€was€filed€pursuant€to€Rule€12.02(2),ÏTenn.R.Civ.P.,€ð ðlack€of€jurisdiction€over€the€person.ðð€€Each€ofÏthe€parties€filed€ð ðmatters€outside€the€pleadingsðð€which€wereÏconsidered€by€the€trial€court;€accordingly,€the€motion€is€properlyÏdisposed€of€pursuant€to€Rule€56,€Tenn.R.Civ.P.€€òòSeeóó€Rule€12.03,ÍTenn.R.Civ.P.€€Since€the€material€facts€are€essentiallyÏundisputed× ƒ/ ××  ×,€the€question€for€us€is€whether€these€facts€ð ðshow€...Ïthat€the€moving€party€[i.e.,€Buck€Fever]€is€entitled€to€a€judgmentÏas€a€matter€of€law.ðð€€Rule€56.03,€Tenn.R.Civ.P.€€Since€this€is€aÏquestion€of€law,€the€record€below€comes€to€us€with€no€€presumptionÏof€correctness€of€the€trial€courtððs€findings.€€ò òòòGonzales€v.€AlmanÏConstruction€Co.óóó ó,€857€S.W.2d€42,€44€(Tenn.€App.€1993).€€We€mustÏdecide€anew€if€the€defendant€is€entitled€to€judgment€in€a€summaryÏfashion.€€òòId.óó€at€44„45.ÌÌà àà àOn€October€14,€1993,€and€again€on€July€8,€1994,€UPS€andÏBuck€Fever,€acting€through€their€respective€representatives,Ïexecuted€separate€contracts,€each€of€which€pertains€to€UPSððsÏagreement€to€transport,€for€a€fee,€packages€that€Buck€FeverÏtransferred€to€it.€€Both€contracts€were€executed€at€Buck€FeverððsÏplace€of€business€in€Marion,€Virginia.€€Pursuant€to€theseÏcontracts,€UPS€picked€up€packages€at€the€defendantððs€VirginiaÏlocation.€€The€companyððs€shipments€were€processed€through€the€UPSÍfacility€in€Bristol,€Virginia.€€The€complaint€seeks€to€recoverÏshipping€charges€that€are€allegedly€past€due.ÌÌà àà àUPS€was€served€with€process€through€the€TennesseeÏSecretary€of€State,€pursuant€to€the€provisions€of€T.C.A.€ðð€20„2„214,€the€Tennessee€long„arm€statute.× ƒ0 ××  ×€€While€acknowledging€that€theÏcontracts€in€question€were€signed€outside€the€state€of€TennesseeÏand€that€all€packages€were€delivered€to€it€in€Virginia,€UPS€arguesÏthat€Buck€Fever€had€sufficient€minimum€contacts€with€Tennessee€inÏother€ways€to€justify€jurisdiction€here.€€The€trial€courtÏdisagreed,€finding€that€the€facts€did€not€show€that€Buck€FeverÏð ðpurposely€established€miminum€contacts€with€the€state€ofÏTennessee,€such€that€it€should€have€reasonably€anticipated€beingÏhaled€into€court€in€Tennessee.ððÌÌà àà àThe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€examined€the€outerÍlimits€imposed€by€constitutional€due€process€on€the€òòin€personamóóÏjurisdiction€of€Tennessee€courts€under€the€long„arm€statute:ÌÌÓÓà àà8 àIn€determining€whether€or€not€a€state€canÏassert€long„arm€jurisdiction,€due€processÏrequires€that€a€non„resident€defendant€beÏsubjected€to€a€judgment€òòin€personamóó€only€if€heÏhas€minimum€contacts€with€the€forum€such€thatÏð ðthe€maintenance€of€the€suit€does€not€offendÏððtraditional€notions€of€fair€play€andÏsubstantial€justice.ððððòòò ò€International€ShoeÏCo.€v.€Washingtonó óóó,€326€U.S.€310,€316,€66ÏS.Ct.€154,€158,€90€L.Ed.€95€(1945).€€However,Ïthe€absence€of€physical€contacts€will€notÏdefeat€òòin€personamóó€jurisdiction€where€aÏcommercial€actor€purposefully€directs€hisÏactivities€toward€citizens€of€the€forum€StateÏand€litigation€results€from€injuries€arisingÏout€of€or€relating€to€those€activities.€Ïòòò òBurger€King€Corp.€v.€Rudzewiczó óóó,€___€U.S.Ï___,€105€S.Ct.€2174,€2182,€85€L.Ed.2d€528Ï(1985).€€In€such€a€case,€ð ðthe€defendantððsÏconduct€and€connection€with€the€forum€StateÏare€such€that€he€should€reasonably€anticipateÏbeing€haled€into€court€there.ðð€€ò òòòWorld„WideÏVolkswagen€Corp.€v.€Woodsonóóó ó,€444€U.S.€286,Ï297,€100€S.Ct.€559,€567,€62€L.Ed.2d€490Ï(1980).ÌÌà àà8 àT.C.A.€ðð€20„2„214€was€considered€a€ð ðsingleÏactðð€statute,€one€in€which€jurisdiction€wasÏassumed€only€over€causes€of€action€arising€outÏof€the€defendantððs€activities€in€the€state,Ïuntil€the€addition€of€subsection€(6)€in€1972.€ÏA€three„pronged€test€had€been€developed€toÏdetermine€the€outer€limits€of€personalÏjurisdiction€based€on€a€single€act:€theÏdefendant€must€purposefully€avail€himself€ofÏthe€privilege€of€acting€in€or€causing€aÏconsequence€in€the€forum€State;€the€cause€ofÏaction€must€arise€from€the€defendantððsÍactivities€there;€and€defendantððs€acts€orÏconsequences€must€have€a€substantialÏconnection€with€the€forum€to€make€the€exerciseÏof€jurisdiction€reasonable.€€ò òòòSouthernÏMachine€Co.€v.€Mohasco€Industries,€Inc.ó óóó,Ï401€F.2d€374,€381€(6th€Cir.€1968).€€SubsectionÏ(6)€changed€the€long„arm€statute€from€aÏð ðsingle€actðð€statute€to€a€ð ðminimum€contactsððÏstatute€which€expanded€the€jurisdiction€ofÏTennessee€courts€to€the€full€limit€allowed€byÏdue€process.€€ò òòòShelby€Mutual€Ins.€Co.€v.ÏMoore,€ó óóó645€S.W.2d€242,€245€(Tenn.€App.€1981).€ÏThat€decision,€quoting€extensively€fromÏò òòòGullet€v.€Qantas€Airways€Ltd.óóó ó,€417€F.Supp.Ï490€(M.D.€Tenn.€1975),€noted€that€the€ò òòòMohascoÏó óóótest€was€now€too€restrictive.€€The€òòò òMooreÏó óóócourt€noted€that€three€primary€factors€are€toÏbe€considered€in€determining€whether€theÏrequisite€minimum€contacts€were€present:€theÏquantity€of€the€contacts,€their€nature€andÏquality,€and€the€source€and€connection€of€theÏcause€of€action€with€those€contacts.€€TwoÏlesser€factors€to€be€considered€are€theÏinterest€of€the€forum€State€and€convenience.€ÏThe€ò òòòMoore€ó óóócourt€concluded:ÌÌà àà àà8 àThe€phrase€ð ðfair€play€andÏsubstantial€justiceðð€must€be€viewedÏin€terms€of€whether€it€is€fair€andÏsubstantially€just€to€both€partiesÏto€have€the€case€tried€in€the€stateÏwhere€the€plaintiff€has€chosen€toÏbring€the€action.€€In€each€case,€theÏquality€and€nature€of€thoseÏactivities€in€relation€to€the€fairÏand€orderly€administration€of€theÏlaw€must€be€weighed.€€As€statedÏabove€in€ò òòòQantasó óóó,€this€must€involveÏsome€subjective€value€judgment€byÏthe€courts.ÌÌà àà8 à645€S.W.2d€at€246.ÌÌÓÓÌòòò òMasada€Investment€Corp.€v.€Allenó óóó,€697€S.W.2d€332,€334„35Ï(Tenn.€1985).€€With€these€principles€in€mind,€we€now€examine€inÏgreater€detail€the€facts€before€us.ÌÌà àà àThe€parties€agree€that€this€suit€ð ðseeks€to€recoverÏamounts€allegedly€owed€by€Buck€Fever€...€for€delivery€servicesÏrendered€in€Virginia.ðð€€That€company€has€never€operated€a€businessÏor€office€in€Tennessee.€€By€the€same€token,€it€has€never€had€anyÏagents€or€employees€acting€on€its€behalf€in€this€state.€€NoÏindividual€from€Buck€Fever€traveled€to€Tennessee€as€a€part€of€theÏnegotiations€that€led€up€to€the€execution€of€the€two€contracts.ÌÌà àà àUPS€points€out€that€both€contracts€signed€by€itsÏrepresentatives€reflect€an€address€under€the€UPS€representativeððsÏsignature€line€of€500€Callahan€Drive,€Knoxville,€Tennessee€37912.€ÏFrom€1987€through€1995,€UPSððs€East€Tennessee€District€was€basedÏout€of€Knoxville.€€The€district€office€and€accounting€office€areÏlocated€in€Knoxville.€€The€Knoxville€office€covers€the€Bristol€andÏAbingdon,€Virginia€areas.€€These€Virginia€areas€were€added€to€theÏEast€Tennessee€District€on€July€1,€1992.€€The€Knoxville€accountingÏoffice€handles€C.O.D.ððs,€billing,€accounts€recievable,€informationÏservices,€credit,€accounting,€and€payroll.€€Delivery€informationÍand€customer€service€are€also€based€out€of€the€Knoxville€office.ÌÌà àà àAll€phone€calls€to€Buck€Fever€regarding€its€credit€cameÏfrom€the€UPS€credit€office€in€Knoxville.€€This€office€alsoÏreceived€calls€back€from€Buck€Fever€to€a€Knoxville€phone€number.€ÏAny€billing€inquiries€received€from€Buck€Fever€would€have€beenÏhandled€out€of€the€Knoxville€office.€€The€Knoxville€office€wouldÏhave€faxed€Buck€Fever€a€copy€of€a€pick„up€record€if€one€wasÏrequested.€€All€packages€picked€up€at€the€Buck€Fever€location€inÏMarion,€Virginia,€were€billed€out€of€the€Knoxville€office,€and€allÏC.O.D.ððs€delivered€to€Buck€Fever€would€be€processed€in€theÏKnoxville€office.ÌÌà àà àOn€October€16,€1992,€a€UPS€employee€spoke€with€anÏemployee€of€Buck€Fever€after€receiving€a€telephone€message€for€aÏcall€back.€€The€conversation€showed€that€Buck€Fever€was€aware€thatÏthe€Knoxville€office€was€now€handling€its€account.€€Buck€Fever€wasÏalso€asked€several€times€during€1992€to€mail€its€payments€to€theÏKnoxville€address€as€a€matter€of€normal€business.€€Evidence€wasÏalso€presented€which€showed€that€at€several€times€during€1994,€theÏUPS€credit€department€asked€Buck€Fever€to€mail€its€payments€to€theÏKnoxville€address,€and€that€Buck€Fever€did€mail€some€paymentsÍduring€1994€to€the€Knoxville€office.€€Apparently,€other€paymentsÏwere€mailed€to€a€UPS€address€in€Louisville,€Kentucky.€€TheÏevidence€also€showed€that€the€customer€service€department€of€UPSÏhas€business€cards€for€each€account€executive€that€list€theirÏbusiness€address€as€500€Callahan€Road,€Knoxville,€Tennessee€37912.ÌÌà àà àThe€contracts€between€the€parties€do€not€containÏprovisions€specifying€that€disputes€will€be€resolved€underÏTennessee€law,€or€that€litigation€between€them€has€to€be€conductedÏin€the€courts€of€this€state.€€òòCf.€ò òBurger€King€Corp.€v.ÏRudzewiczó óóó,€471€U.S.€462,€105€S.Ct.€2174,€85€L.Ed.2d€528€(1985).€ÏThe€contracts€are€silent€on€both€subjects.ÌÌà àà àIn€the€instant€case,€it€is€clear€that€the€essence€of€theÏbusiness€relationship€between€the€parties€„„€the€transferring€ofÏpackages€from€shipper€to€carrier€and€beyond€„„€took€place€outsideÏthe€state€of€Tennessee.€€The€parties€agree€that€the€shippingÏservices€furnished€by€UPS€were€rendered€in€Virginia.€€All€contactsÏwith€Tennessee€were€merely€ancillary€to€the€real€businessÏtransacted€by€the€parties.€€It€is€true€that€UPS€provides€supportÏservices€to€its€Virginia€operations€out€of€its€Knoxville€office;Ïbut€it€is€not€UPSððs€contacts€with€Tennessee€that€are€central€toÍthe€question€before€us,€but€rather€the€òòdefendantððsóó€contacts€withÏthis€state.ÌÌà àà àThe€fact€that€Buck€Fever€knew€that€it€was€dealing€withÏthe€Knoxville€office€of€UPS€is€also€not€critical.€€One€does€notÏanticipate€the€exercise€of€a€foreign€stateððs€jurisdiction€over€itÏjust€because€it€has€ancillary€administrative€contacts€with€anÏoffice€of€a€company€in€that€state,€when€the€real€businessÏtransactions€between€the€parties€are€outside€that€state.ÌÌà àà àWe€do€not€believe€that€phone€calls€to€and€from€TennesseeÏregarding€Buck€Feverððs€Virginia€account,€mailings€of€payments,€orÏother€communications€to€or€from€Tennessee€are€sufficient€toÏjustify€an€assertion€of€long„arm€jurisdiction.€€All€of€this€isÏancillary€to€the€business€of€shipping€„„€an€activity€that€in€thisÏcase€occurred€entirely€outside€the€state€of€Tennessee.ÌÌà àà àWhen€measured€against€the€criteria€outlined€in€ò òòòMasadaÏInvestment€Corp.ó óóó,€it€is€clear€that€Buck€Feverððs€contacts€withÏTennessee€are€not€sufficient€in€quantity€or€quality€to€constituteÏthe€minimum€contacts€required€to€constitutionally€permit€TennesseeÏto€exercise€òòin€personamóó€jurisdiction€over€Buck€Fever.€€We€agreeÍwith€the€trial€court€that€Buck€Feverððs€contacts€with€Tennessee€areÏnot€such€that€it€ð ðshould€reasonably€anticipate€being€haled€intoÏcourtðð€in€Tennessee.€€òòò òWorld„Wide€Volkswagen€Corp.€v.€Woodsonó óóó,Ï444€U.S.€286,€297,€100€S.Ct.€559,€567,€62€L.Ed.2d€490€(1980).€ÏSuit€in€Tennessee€against€Buck€Fever€is€not€consistent€withÏtraditional€notions€of€fair€play€and€substantial€justice.ÌÌà àà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€onÏappeal€are€taxed€against€the€appellant€and€its€surety.€€This€caseÏis€remanded€for€collection€of€costs€assessed€below,€pursuant€toÏapplicable€law.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_________________________ÌHouston€M.€Goddard,€P.J.ÌÌÌÌ_________________________ÌDon€T.€McMurray,€J.ÌÔ€$Ô